An
examination of the Communist Revolution of China as an
representation of Marxism and Maoism.

Abstract:
The Communist Revolution of China can not be clearly
classified as a Marxist revolution. A revolution
following the doctrine of Marxism would be set in an
industrialized nation with a substantial proletariate
population. The capitalists natural tendency to
achieve greater profit would steadily decrease the wage
until it was at the bare subsistence level, creating
intolerable living conditions. This leads to the
formation of more trade unions, as well as strengthening
existing ones, giving some power back to the workers. The
unions would eventually become strong enough to topple
capitalism and create a new system. Communism would solve
the problems associated with industrialization, without
sacrificing the advantages for the masses. People would
be willing to abolish private property because nine
tenths of the population have no property to abolish.
China was an undeveloped nation during its revolution.
Industry was just beginning, the far majority of the
population were still peasant farmers. The revolution was
achieve through armed conflict against the existing
government. The proletariat was too weak to overthrow
capitalism. Instead of unions fighting for more power, it
is one single army which forces the previous government
to flee, leaving the nation in the hands of the
revolutionaries. The end result is more or less the same,
but the paths were very different. Marxs outline of
the revolution was drastically different than
Chinas revolution of Maoism.

The extent the Japanese
invasion and World War II hinder Or facilitate the
Communist Revolution of China.

Introduction:
The Japanese invasion and World War II dramatically
changed the Communist revolution of China and the
Nationalist revolution. Morale were hampered as entire
cities and industries were either evacuated or destroyed.
Spirits boosted after each victory whether large or
small. Official policies were modified or abandoned. It
strained resources for everyone, especially during harsh
times like the great famine. Armies were strengthened,
weakened, or destroyed. Japan brought the civil war to an
international level, creating new opportunities. The
attack which shocked China allowed the two Chinese
parties to be viewed under a different light. Loyalties
changed with public opinions. Political rivalry became
viewed more as fratricide to the public, and decreasingly
justifiable. The invasion tightened the boundaries of
political warfare, and reduced open war between the
Chinese Parties. Conditions forced governments to take
drastic steps it would not otherwise consider. It allowed
the country to view the fighting governments in a new
light, shifting public opinion to favour the Chinese
Communist Party.paths were very different. Marxs
outline of the revolution was drastically different than
Chinas revolution.

Introduction:
Communism and Marxism are interchangeable to many, a dangerous
misconception. Communal societies have existed for thousands
of years, while Marxism was only created during the mid-nineteenth
century. Communism is the general communal sharing of property.
Marxism is specific to industrial nations, involving the revolutionary
overthrow of the pro-capitalist government from the roots by an
ppressed proletarian class, leading to the emancipation of the
proletariate from the bottom of the social hierarchy, the formation
of a single class from the abolition of all classes, and the
abolition of private property such that all property becomes public.
Marxist theory predicts the proletariat will inevitably seize control
of the means of production. Marxism is so specific that a nation
could be under Communist rule without following the Marxist doctrine.

Introduction:
An Euclidean theorem is similar to an syllogism in many
aspects; they are usually interchangeable. They share the
same fundament principle which is deriving a conclusion
from a few assumptions. The details coincide so
consistently that it can be said that Euclidean theorems are
syllogisms.

Is there knowledge we should not seek? Or is all knowledge inherently a good
thing, and can only persons be harmful?

Conclusion:
Only people can be harmful, knowledge itself cannot help
anyone nor harm anyone. If someone is harmed, that is the
result of a person. It is his will and harmful intent to
harm the victim, not the will of knowledge. Since
knowledge is neither good nor harmful, and whether the
results of the knowledge will be beneficial or harmful is
independent of any categories knowledge may lie within,
there is no reason to avoid certain categories of
knowledge. Every type of knowledge equally has the
potential to enhance daily life, and that potential
should be allowed to be exploited even at the cost of
releasing harmful potentials. All systems of knowledge
should be researched and taught because it does not harm,
only people harm. Knowledge has will of its own.

Introduction:
The relationship between thought and language is no different
than water and a container. Language is best defined as a
method of expression. Like a cup, it determines how the thought
is presented. A tall blue glass and an elegant glass bunch bowl
both holds the same punch, only in a different way.

Conclusion:
Although absolute truth can never be found, the probable truth
can. Using the process of analyzing evidence supporting and
contradicting the statement, we can determine if any statement
is probably true, as well as the degree of probability. With
this information, whether or not truth was created or discovered
can be found.